More expensive than the Point Grey and West Van waterfront? Than Toronto's Bridle Path?

Belmont Ave in Point Grey is maybe creeping higher, but British Properties has traditionally been the most elite area - the houses and properties are bigger and $20 million+ is not unheard of. Lions Gate traffic is probably hurting it though, along with Chinese investors preferring Vancouver proper.

Kingston has a sort of SW/NE split, with the West End (west of Queen's U.) being the most affluent and nice lakefront areas and the North End (north and east of Princess St.) being the poorer and most industrial part of town.

Yep. This difference is also explainable by prevailing winds. The lake and the harbour makes winds move in a east-then-north pattern around the core.

I'd say Edmonton has both south/north and west/east divides, but the south/north divide is much more pronounced. The west end is north of the river, but is more similar and connected to the southside. Because of the way the North Saskatchewan River bends southwest from downtown, much of the residential west end is still as far south as the southside is. The west end residential portion is also siphoned from the northside by industrial areas, whereas they are seamlessly connected with southwest communities aside from the river splitting things.

The northside is definitely much more blue collar and really lacks the affluence of the south and west sides. If you want to see affluence north of the Yellowhead, you'd best go to the bedroom community of St. Albert. The only northside (or eastside, depending on your definition) neighbourhood I'd describe as affluent is the Highlands, a 1920s streetcar suburb. The northside is also overall much more matured than other sides and has less greenfield development. Even neighbourhoods hugging the river, where most of Edmonton's affluent neighbourhoods are in the south and west, are much more middle class in the northeast, due to them directly facing Refinery Row on the other side of the river in Strathcona County. There are many middle class and upper middle class areas on the northside, just not very many very affluent areas aside from the Highlands.

The west end has the Jasper Place environs, Callingwood, Mayfield, etc for areas that are more lower income. And the southside has Mill Woods. So it's not like there is a particular "side" of Edmonton that is wholly affluent or better off, but overall the south and west are better off, with the edge given to the south, and the lower income areas on these sides of Edmonton aren't as rough around the edge as northside equivalents, overall.

Unsurprisingly, the most affluent area of Edmonton is where the south and west converge in the southwest, along the river valley as well as Whitemud Creek.

This sounds exactly like Winnipeg. The rich/poor divide follows a N/S orientation. The far western reaches of the city tend be run more middle class than wealthy, but the SW corner of the city is arguably the wealthiest on the whole. The eastern end tends to be working class, as is the north but the big difference is that much of Winnipeg's worst poverty is concentrated up north.

I grew up in the northern half of the city and while there were clearly pockets of poverty, much of it was not much different than the rest of the city. However, I occasionally encounter Winnipeggers who seldom go north of Portage Avenue and think that the entire northern half of the city is some crime-ridden shantytown... it blows me away that some people just live in what amounts to half of the city.

There isn't really a significant socioeconomic difference between the east and west ends in Toronto. The west end though has a more vibrant urbanism overall, with a smoother flow between neighborhoods. So you have Little Portugal flowing into Ossington and Ossington into Queen West and Queen West into Parkdale and up Roncesvalles.

The east end in contrast has some pockets of activity but a lot more "dead zones" in it.

There isn't really a significant socioeconomic difference between the east and west ends in Toronto. The west end though has a more vibrant urbanism overall, with a smoother flow between neighborhoods. So you have Little Portugal flowing into Ossington and Ossington into Queen West and Queen West into Parkdale and up Roncesvalles.

The east in contrast has some pockets of activity has a lot more "dead zones" in it.

What about looking at the region overall? Isn't Halton Region wealthier than Durham Region? And how does York Region compare?

Halton is more desirable than Durham, yes. Oakville is the closest thing Toronto has to the deisrable railroad suburbs of the US. The Durham lakeshore is more industrial and Durham is the most "working class" of the regions. Peel is very mixed. York Region is pretty affluent too.

It's true in many European cities as well: London, Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin (true even before the division) and Lisbon all have had traditionally affluent west sides and working class east sides for hundreds of years.

This was previously the case in Shanghai as well. The west bank of the Huangpu River (Puxi) was far more developed and affluent than the east bank (Pudong) up until the 1990s, when the government started the rapid pace of development of Pudong.

__________________
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature." - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

In many cities in the US, the north side is more affluent and the south side much less so...most noticeable in Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles and Washington DC.

Detroit is probably an exception, since the entire city is impoverished.

If you're talking about Metro Detroit and not just the City of Detroit, then much of it is quite well off and really nice. Some of the Northern and Western suburbs are very nice. Some to the South were not bad but I think the wealth is more concentrated in areas like Auburn Hills.

And the population of the cities surrounding Detroit have a lot more people than the city itself.

As railways enter a city and stopped until the next expansion {which in most of Canada meant coming from east and westward expansion}, the lines wouldd halt at the major city. At that point of tempoary terminus, the railways would need maintenance/sheds etc and businesses that relied on the railways also set up shop there. Of course the low income people that worked at the set up businesses built houses nearby. When the railroad eventually was built further westward, the urban scape of the city had been set as the Eastside being industrial and working class. It's working class element obviously had little political power so all the nicest amenities, homes, roads, parks etc were
built in the wealthier areas ie the Western part of the city.

Toronto is an exeption but the main east/west railway was built at the same time and was along the Lakeshore which, to prove my point, is why the poorer and older areas of the city are near the railway tracks and the areas furthest away are the wealthy older areas ie Rosedale, High Park, Forest Hill.

Canada is a huge country and the railways binded us together and also set the tone for our urban landscape.

As railways enter a city and stopped until the next expansion {which in most of Canada meant coming from east and westward expansion}, the lines wouldd halt at the major city. At that point of tempoary terminus, the railways would need maintenance/sheds etc and businesses that relied on the railways also set up shop there. Of course the low income people that worked at the set up businesses built houses nearby. When the railroad eventually was built further westward, the urban scape of the city had been set as the Eastside being industrial and working class. It's working class element obviously had little political power so all the nicest amenities, homes, roads, parks etc were
built in the wealthier areas ie the Western part of the city.

Toronto is an exeption but the main east/west railway was built at the same time and was along the Lakeshore which, to prove my point, is why the poorer and older areas of the city are near the railway tracks and the areas furthest away are the wealthy older areas ie Rosedale, High Park, Forest Hill.

Canada is a huge country and the railways binded us together and also set the tone for our urban landscape.

It doesn't answer the question of why the southern halves of prairie cities are generally more affluent than the north. Especially considering every prairie city is a direct product of the railway that passes through it.

Ottawa is a bit of an exception to this rule. While the general pattern is somewhat there, there's lots of exceptions. Sandy Hill, Rockcliffe Park, and New Edinburgh are in the east and they're traditionally affluent, while Hintonburg and Lebreton (pre-demolition) are in the west and traditionally working-class.

Nowadays, Sandy Hill is a student/youth area and Hintonburg is gentrified but both trends are very recent (only in the last ~25 years) long after the prevailing winds of industry stopped being a factor.